USA - Going to Hell in a Handbasket?

Karla - posted on 05/30/2012 ( 53 moms have responded )

1,555

48

83

First: "Going to hell in a handbasket", "going to hell in a handcart", "going to hell in a handbag" and '"sending something to hell in a handbasket" are variations on an American alliterative locution of unclear origin, which describes a situation headed for disaster without effort or in great haste.



It's not just the USA, but they sure have some ugly stats about child poverty.



Here's what I really want to discuss, I just read this:



According to a new report from the Office of Research at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.S. has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. Of the 35 wealthy countries studied by UNICEF, only Romania has a child poverty rate higher than the 23 percent rate in the U.S.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05...



Report Card 10, from UNICEF’s Office of Research, looks at child poverty and child deprivation across the industrialized world, comparing and ranking countries’ performance. This international comparison, says the Report, proves that child poverty in these countries is not inevitable, but policy susceptible - and that some countries are doing much better than others at protecting their most vulnerable children.



“The report makes clear that some governments are doing much better at tackling child deprivation than others,” said Mr Alexander. “The best performers show it is possible to address poverty within the current fiscal space. On the flip side, failure to protect children from today’s economic crisis is one of the most costly mistakes a society can make.”


http://www.unicef.org/media/media_62521....



Figure 1a shows the percentage of children

(aged 1 to 16) who lack two or more

of the following 14 items because the

households in which they live cannot

afford to provide them.

1. Three meals a day

2. At least one meal a day with meat,

chicken or fish (or a vegetarian

equivalent)

3. Fresh fruit and vegetables every day

4. Books suitable for the child’s age and

knowledge level (not including

schoolbooks)

5. Outdoor leisure equipment (bicycle,

roller-skates, etc.)

6. Regular leisure activities (swimming,

playing an instrument, participating in

youth organizations etc.)

7. Indoor games (at least one per child,

including educational baby toys,

building blocks, board games,

computer games etc.)

8. Money to participate in school trips

and events

9. A quiet place with enough room

and light to do homework

10. An Internet connection

11. Some new clothes (i.e. not all

second-hand)

12. Two pairs of properly fitting shoes

(including at least one pair of

all-weather shoes)

13. The opportunity, from time to time, to

invite friends home to play and eat

14. The opportunity to celebrate special

occasions such as birthdays, name

days, religious events, etc.




USA - not on this list

Canada - "

UK 5.5%

N.Z. - Not on this list

Australia - Not on this list.



Figure 1b shows the percentage of children

(aged 0 to 17) who are living in relative

poverty, defined as living in a household in

which disposable income, when adjusted

for family size and composition, is less

than 50% of the national median income.




Where the USA is at 23%

Canada 13.3%

UK 12.1 %

N.Z. 11.7%

Australia 10.9%



http://www.unicef-irc.org/



I don't really have a good debate question to go with this; I'm just wondering what you are seeing in your area. What do you think can be done about these children in poverty?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

One thing that sucks is that we must be forced through taxes to pay for programs that help the underprivileged. People tell me all the time that they don't mind helping the poor, they just don't want to be "forced" to help them. Unfortunately, the reality is that if they are not "forced" they won't help. According to the IRS, the average individual donation to charitable organizations is less than 5% of one's annual income--even in middle and upper class families! In fact, it is the poor, who donate the most: families with an annual income of less than $25,000 on average give 4.6%, while middle and upper class families give less than 3% (this includes church tithing). That is less than $5,000 per year for a family making $100,000--which is quite honestly pathetic. If people don't like the way the government allocates the funds, they are free to allocate them themselves, but very few do.

One easy solution is to cut spending on military by 1 billion (this is less than 2%, if I remember correctly) and allocate that to programs to help children specifically--namely, tutoring and aftercare programs at public schools. These programs, where available provide computers with internet access and quiet spaces for homework that children cannot access at home. They also provide assistance in areas where the students struggle, and allow parents to work longer hours (up to 9 hours per day). They also provide nutritional snack (and in some places dinner) consisting of Fruit and/or veggie, dairy, and protein (proteins in dinners only). The average cost to run such a program benefiting 200 students can be less than $500,000 per year if you have enough volunteers and can gather donated paper and pencils. $1billion could serve 400,000 kids. We could double that by charging as little as $20 per week per kid. By properly educating children, we increase their chances of breaking the poverty cycle and reduce future poverty levels.

Krista - posted on 05/30/2012

12,562

16

842

I think it's shameful that a country with so many resources does such a craptacular job of helping its needy.

Unfortunately, as we saw from the mat leave thread, a lot of people in the U.S. have this attitude of "Screw you, Jack. Why should my tax dollars pay for your choices in life?" It seems as though poverty is treated as a moral failing -- if you're poor, it's because you're lazy, or because you made stupid mistakes, or because you just didn't try hard enough. So why should that be rewarded?

It's a terrible attitude, and it's an IGNORANT attitude. Yes, in the U.S. everybody is free to better themselves, but for some people, there are so many obstacles and roadblocks that the odds of improving their life are virtually astronomical. The myth of unlimited upward mobility in the U.S. is just that -- a myth. Those channels are becoming increasingly clogged, as the rich get richer, while the middle class, working class and poor have increasingly heavy weights tied around their ankles.

What can be done? What can be done is for people to stop being so fucking selfish and drop the "FYIGM" attitude. The U.S. has a giant military machine, and if even a tiny fraction of those tax dollars were to be spent on breakfast programs, subsidized day care, and universal health care, you'd see an enormous difference in the living standard for the poor.

Johnny - posted on 05/30/2012

8,686

26

318

The province I live in has the highest child poverty rate in our country. This is as a result of some ridiculously high costs of living accompanied by stagnant wages. Most of these kids have working parents, a working single mother, are in the the child welfare system, or live on First Nations reserves. Given the wealth that exists in our economy and society, it's shameful.

This isn't about "welfare mothers having 6 kids and spending all their money on manicures and Coach purses" like people wish to pretend it its. It's about both parents working full-time or two jobs at $12/hr trying to pay rent upwards of $1200/month on a one/two bedroom basement suite and struggling to pay $200/month for heat, $200/month for their transit passes, at least $900/month for daycare, and still buy food. Since we don't have food stamps here, most of them spend time standing in line with retired people and the other working poor at the local food bank by the end of the month.

It's not just an American problem, increased wealth disparity is happening world-wide and is effecting children the worst. It indicates a future with adults struggling with lower education levels, social issues, and health problems resulted from poor nutrition as kids.

Janice - posted on 07/18/2012

1,890

18

63

Beyond being able to afford extra food there are other reasons why some may hesitate to let their child have a friend over.
1. If you are very poor you may not have a home - you may live in a shelter or your car.
2. You may be living with a friend or relative and do not want to burden them.
3. You may live in a dilapidated house/apartment and it may not be safe or it might be embarrassing to have people over.
4. Many who are poor either work multiple jobs or suffer from depression which may make it difficult to keep their home clean enough to have guests.
5. parents may be working so often that they are not home in order for the child to have friends over.

Sherri - posted on 07/06/2012

9,593

15

387

If we didn't have internet my kids would literally fail almost all classes for school. Internet is no longer optional but mandatory for our children.

My kids have or are able to do every item from the list 1-14 but we are still considered living below poverty. We make $40,000 a year for a family of 6.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

53 Comments

View replies by

Janice - posted on 07/19/2012

1,890

18

63

Yeah I have been just hitting any letter and posting so I can see and then deleting too.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 07/19/2012

18,908

9

3002

I know, it kinda makes debating difficult, and makes the alerts confusing. HUGE pain in the ass.

Karla - posted on 07/19/2012

1,555

48

83

We can keep posting random shit so that we can see other random shit everyone else posted just so they can see my random shit. Snowball effect on COM.

Maybe it's COM's way of increasing their numbers! lol

~♥Little Miss - posted on 07/19/2012

18,908

9

3002

I don't know why it is saying it so often, but YES I am deleting the numbers I type or letters I type in order just to get posts to show up.

Karla - posted on 07/19/2012

1,555

48

83

My post is not showing up (where I mention Lil' Miss may have changed her mind, or edited something) and now my notifications say
~♥Little Miss just posted to the thread "Men and Abortion". Click here to see it. - 4 minutes ago
~♥Little Miss just posted to the thread "USA - Going to Hell in a Handbasket?". Click here to see it. - 5 minutes ago
~♥Little Miss just posted to the thread "USA - Going to Hell in a Handbasket?". Click here to see it. - 6 minutes ago

And those aren't showing up anywhere.

WTH???

~♥Little Miss - posted on 07/19/2012

18,908

9

3002

Karla, I have to post something in order for older posts to show up. Usually just a letter or something. Leader board knows, just hasn't been fixed yet.

Karla - posted on 07/19/2012

1,555

48

83

Megan, I think Lil Miss must have posted then deleted, it's just not here. (or edited - does that show up in notifications as a new post?)

Karla - posted on 07/18/2012

1,555

48

83

Yes Johnny, this is what I found! Very alarming! "The term was created by Friedrich Fröbel for the play and activity institute that he created in 1837 in Bad Blankenburg as a social experience for children for their transition from home to school."

"social experience" ew.

(more sarcasm for those who do not know.)

Karla - posted on 07/18/2012

1,555

48

83

Ah yes, the evil horned red devilish Socialism monster rears it's evil head yet again.

A much better way has arrived:
Said with sinister tone:

Don't. touch. my. P.B.&.J. Sandwich!

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/18/2012

6,434

12

67

Erin, I don't know where you're from but where I come from and where I live now it's considered good manners to offer your guests something to knosh on and something to drink. Down in New York State we call it hospitality. Come to think of it we call it hospitality or manners in British Columbia too.



Meh, Karla I don't know why either of us are bothering. Inviting people over and inviting them to have something to snack on is probably some kind of socialism.

Karla - posted on 07/17/2012

1,555

48

83

Yes Erin, because we all know socializing is crap. (sarcasm)

Breaking bread together is older than documented history; we are social creatures.



The information comes from UNICEF and what they know to be important for child development. -ETA- it's seems pretty straight forward to me.

Erin - posted on 07/17/2012

195

0

6

I'm sorry but where does it say that kids who come over to play need to eat your food? This article is crap. It's not focused and I just can't take it seriously.

Michelle - posted on 07/14/2012

6

20

0

I think often of the lives of poor children in this country and how much better off and stronger we would all be as a nation if every child grew up in a loving home with at least the basics. And I think constantly about what I can do to help and the more I think about it, the more helpless and overwhelmed I feel. I am frustrated with the growing gap between rich and poor, the myths and assumptions that poor people are only poor because they are lazy, etc.

So I have stopped thinking on a larger scale and have began to focus on what I can do on a personal level on a day to day basis. I am not in a place to do this at the moment because I've got three young kids and have to work 3/4 time, but my dream is to start a non-profit and begin by opening up a free daycare/preschool in one of our poorest areas and in proximity to the neighborhood elementary school.

As a nurse practitioner, I would also eventually like to add a pediatric clinic, counseling center, and parenting classes. Yes, it sounds very similar to Head Start, but I would really like to see an organization centered around individualized childcare and healthy parenting with a social emotional curriculum that is of equal importance to academic learning. I would focus on retention of caregivers and match the same caregivers (assuming it is a healthy match) to the same children for the entire time the child is there. I find, and this is anecdotal, that in many cases, the difference between children that make it out of poverty and those that don't is the presence of at least one genuinely encouraging adult in their lives.

These are the building blocks I feel are key to future success for children. Early intervention is so so important! It will take much time and research on my part to write grants, etc... but some day...

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/07/2012

6,434

12

67

My parents have a swimming pool, they share it with friends and family.

It must suck really hard to not like anything socialist. You can't even get mail or drive on the roads because they're socialist. And forget taking your kids to the playground because it's available to the public.

Sherri - posted on 07/06/2012

9,593

15

387

We have a swimming pool too. LOL but we share....so ours is not capitalist democracy.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/06/2012

6,434

12

67

The public beach is socialist Jodi and we have a bunch of them in my city- Damn Marxism.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/06/2012

6,434

12

67

I live in Canada My daughters have all kinds of toys (new and second hand) clothes (new and second hand, and books (new and second hand). My older daughter has 2 bikes (one 2nd hand from DH's cousin and one new at my MIL's because she and her boyfriend thought she needed one) a scooter and she had a portable DVD player until one of the cats chewed up the charger.

We do have days where we don't have meat or a meat substitute because I just don't feel like cooking something so we have soup or grilled cheese or whatever someone wants. We did that tonight.

I think there should be programs to give kids bikes or scooters and a helmet so they can go and play with their friends. That's really all I can say about it. A bike or a scooter may not seem like a necessity to some people, but to a kid it means their own mode of transportation and a way to keep up with their friends.

Jodi - posted on 07/06/2012

26,095

36

3891

"Swimming pools are socialist."

Only if it is a community pool. If you have one in your back yard and won't share it, well, that's a capitalist democracy...... :P

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 07/06/2012

6,434

12

67

Erin... if you can't have your childrens' friends over to eat at your home because then there won't be enough food for your family that means you're p o o r.

Krista everything is socialist. Did the preggo brain hit already?

Jodi - posted on 07/06/2012

26,095

36

3891

Actually, you would be surprised how very necessary having regular access to an internet connection is in the cycle of poverty. Education these days is very much reliant on access to internet connections, and children with a connection in the home have an educational advantage over those who don't, which often means their education will be broader, and there performance has the potential to be superior. Without the internet connection, children will often be left behind, and thus, their education levels are lower, and this, in turn, is what determines their opportunities in life, which lead to their socio-economic outcomes.

So I can see how an internet connection, in this day and age, is considered something that is necessary.

I don't think anyone suggested that lack of a swimming pool was an indicator of poverty. It was lack of opportunity for extra curricular activities. I think perhaps you read that part far too literally.

Erin - posted on 07/06/2012

195

0

6

Alot of the crap on there is just plain luxury items. It's not poverty to not have internet and swimming pools outside the house. This is the problem with this world we think we NEED all this junk and people try to treat parents like their rights, but when it comes to help they tell us their luxuries (which some of those are). We all want to live above our means and act like we're all rich. It's rediculous. The concern I have is food, clothing, shelter, water. Everything else is secondary. And what does being poor have to with kids coming over to play at your house?

Teresa - posted on 06/05/2012

139

10

22

Hi, Karla, Big subject issue's for sure! Child poverty has been a subject of many huge debates across many countrys and with many goverments, charitys, and organisations, all of whom have one desire to eradicate child poverty from the planet. Its a mountain of a task, one which most of us will not see happen in our life time! However small changes and exchange of ideas and constant reviews will lead on to keep the topic in the front of goverments agenda.
Within the UK after the second world war, our then goverment set up the a benifit system which included the NHS (National Health System) to erdicate poverty, this was seen as postive move in supporting families who were living in poverty and unable to access medical help for thier children, it also included benifits as a safety net to vunrable people who were in need of support in difficult situations.

The system at the time was seen as a modern answer to the future in securing the next generation, were educated and cared for, in the hope that no child would be in need or going hungry.
Since then many goverments have come and gone all with good intentions of removing child poverty from our country, as yet none have hit this target, why? because mainly we seem to deal in a more reactive way rather proactive, understandably we react when the subject becomes 'hot news' when the media feels this is again a subject that can catch the notice of politicians and the indivduals attention, if its not news worthy then why even disscus the subject?
To deal with child poverty it needs to be at the fore front of politicians agend's (and those who vote them in). If you knew that every single day on this planet children are dying of hunger and neglect and lacking a good education and medical care, we may feel this is unjust and be met with a diffrent reaction, unfortunatly this is not the case, its a subject which every country will acknowledge and try in many ways to overcome, each country has put forward many ideas and had many debates in how this could be done, until the countrys involve them selves in a joint effort and not use it as political debating issue nothing will change.
One can always look at mumbers and figures and explain what is going on, and of course we should be aware of this, although as times go on, the issue of how many and who is paying for what and where, seems to be covering over the cracks rather than dealing with crumbling issue.
There are many global companys who have a wealth far beyond the goverments pockets, they may seem to be doing some work, however many respond at a time when again to be seen to be helping is a way of publicly showing their concern, and not out of concern for the needs of those vunrable families and children in need.

Each of us have a chance to do something from sponsering a child abroad, to supporting a family in your own neighbourhood , so many things as indivduals, and as country that we are able to do. So dont get on your soap box if you are not willing to get of and show you are willing to get your hands dirty and make a diffrence, the diffrence is I do it to make a diffrence to those who are caught in the poverty trap, I dont do it to get votes, make my company name bigger, or because I may need to prove that I am a good person, I do it because I dont live in poverty, I have the chance to eat every day, I have a bed to sleep in, my children have an education and if need to can get medical and care . Thank God.

Krista - posted on 05/31/2012

12,562

16

842

Kelly, it's often the people who think they wouldn't make good politicians who wind up making the best politicians. I just thought I'd bring it up. You have excellent ideas, you communicate those ideas very eloquently, in a manner to which people can relate. And to be frank, your personal history is VERY compelling. As a business owner AND someone who has triumphed against poverty, I could see you having a large populist appeal.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/31/2012

3,377

8

66

Oh Karla, corporate greed is preposterous. There is so much of it and they are sinking the smaller people. It is terrible and truthfully, they should be paying extreme high end taxes. This would contribute greatly to many of the unfortunate, especially children.

It is not the child's fault that they are in poverty. They most definitely deserve everything they need to live a happy, viable life. No child should go with out, ever. Corporate greed is immense and it should and needs to be heavily taxed.

Karla - posted on 05/31/2012

1,555

48

83

Kelly & Janice - You make some very good points.

I'll share that my husband and I realized that together we make as much money as he did alone 15 years ago, and we are lower middle class. That hurts.

I think a big problem with poor people, besides lack of education, is depression and/or mental health issues. This state of depression also has the appearance of being lazy, when in fact the problem is much bigger than that and something that can be managed.

I can't even touch the problems of corporate greed and its effect on society right now... to depressed... go figure. I'll come back later for that rant.
;-)

[deleted account]

Thanks, Krista! No, I've never considered running for office, but I guess that is something to think about....I'm not sure I would make a very good politician.

Janice - posted on 05/31/2012

1,890

18

63

I forget where I read it but I just saw an article discussing how my generation (I was born in '83) and those younger will be the first to be less wealthy than their parents. Now that may be no big deal to those in the upper middle class but its a scary thought for people like me who came from working class and poor homes to begin with.

The myth of unlimited upward mobility in the U.S. is just that -- a myth. This is soooo true! I think currently all it takes is one mistake to be set back for many years. I think a big problem is the approach to college. We are told that you must attend college/ university in order to move up the proverbial ladder. Then if you are poor but not dirt poor you are given the opportunity to take out loans to pay for it. You are told that the loans are worth it because you will make way more money with a degree than with out one. Then you graduate in a boat load of debt and currently there are no jobs. Then if you default on your loans your credit is screwed so that when you do eventually/ hopefully get to a better spot you still can't buy a home or a nicer car.

The housing market is so F'ed up right now. So the home prices have dropped which is good because they were inflated but the cost of rent is still crazy high. It is actually cheaper to buy than rent if you dont include taxes. However, currently you have to have impeccable credit and 20% down payment to get a home loan. Its really had to save for a down payment when your paying every extra penny towards your school loans and you cant get a home loan if you made any poor financial decision in your early 20's even if you are doing well in your late 20's.

So yeah I do see many hard working people completely stuck just barely getting by.

That being said I think the 14 criteria listed in the OP to indicate poverty are not all bad. I mean if a child doesn't own outside toys and a quiet place to do homework they are living in poverty?
When I think poverty I think the poorest of the poor not working class families that must forgo certain things that are good but not necessary. I think that the criteria list and the fact that it only requires 2 or more items to be considered impoverished could really create skewed data. I mean maybe a family has many kids and its always noisy and they don't bother buying outside toys because they don't value physical activity. These 2 things alone don't indicate poverty IMO.

Additionally, there is a percentage of the population that is poor but could afford to feed their children good food but choose not to. I say this because I know people like this. It sucks because the middle class sees these assholes and thinks all the poor and working poor are like that, lazy and looking for a handout. So those who are trying to improve there life and may just need a bit of help for a short time but they can't get it because policy makers have just lumped all the poor together as lazy.

[deleted account]

Forgive me for getting on my soapbox here, but the whole battle between natural born Americans and immigrants--legal or illegal--really gets under my skin.

Here's the deal. America was founded on illegal immigrants. Anglican men and women came here, killed and deceived the native people, then put up walls. How hypocritical is that? My tribe was killed off to the point that when the Anglos quartered us off into the reservations that our tribe did not even have enough members left to be recognized and were just grouped in with other tribes. So if the citizens here today are here today because their ancestors came in and took what they wanted, I don't think they have any right to stop others from doing the same.

Now lets look at the immigration process. First off, it can take MANY years. There are 3 ways to immigrate: Immediate Family, Family Preferences, and Employment Preferences. Immediate Family (children & spouses of US citizens) takes about a year and is the ONLY way that does not have a limit. Family Preferences is divided into 4 categories and wait lists for each vary between 5 and 15 years. Employment Preferences takes 2 to 3 years even without a back log, but back logs are currently 3 to 5 years anyway and few immigrants qualify for this method. In addition to being able to wait out a few years to a decade (kids don't really need to go to school until they are 11 or 12, right?) the applicant must also speak English. That's no big deal, right? Live in the US, speak English....now you try to learn a foreign language with no access to books, classes, internet, or teachers. And let's not forget the cost--in addition to travel expenses, the cost of the application alone is $680. That may not be much to most US citizens, but it's a lifetime of savings for people living on a few dollars a day. Most of these immigrants are fleeing villages torn apart by drug wars, they don't have running water and electricity, much less computers and libraries. Their children are not safe from bullet spray sleeping in their beds, much less playing in their yards. Why should we hate these people for wanting a safe place for their children to sleep, play, and learn?

Now lets look at what they do once they get here. They work their asses off. Most work on farms, horse tracks, and slaughter houses--12-18 hours a day for less than $10/day. The slaughter house in my county employs over 200 illegal immigrants. It was raided twice, but despite a high unemployment rate for our county, after 4 months with 212 openings, they had received only 24 applications. Come on! That is a guaranteed job! ANYONE would have been hired, so why weren't the Americans so desperate for jobs applying?

The idea that it is easier to get assistance if you are an illegal immigrant is a myth. There are no laws on the books or even public policies in place that facilitate that idea. I work with the homeless and immigrant population on a daily basis--you might see an illegal immigrant wearing a $3000 suit, but I can assure you, he is not walking into that federal aid office for aid--he is a slave lord and he is hunting whores, mothers do desperate to help their kids they will give themselves to him in exchange for a good life for their kids. He tells a good story, they are lost and confused, hungry and dirty, and they fall for his lies.

http://www.litwinlaw.com/CM/Articles/How... (this is a link to the immigration process, for those who don't know the specifics)
http://www.cuny.edu/about/resources/citi... (FAQs)

Krista - posted on 05/31/2012

12,562

16

842

Kelly, have you ever considered running for office? Seriously...your ideas are excellent.

[deleted account]

Crystal, most of our government officials all make less than $200,000 per year with the exception of the president ($400,000), and the Speaker of the House ($225,000). They are rich, but their money comes from their other ventures outside of their political office, not their salary for holding office. You must also remember that they have to spend often hundreds of thousands of their own dollars (in addition to donations and fundraising money) to even get into office. All in all, they break even.



Cutting the military budget does not mean cutting pay to military personnel, it means a very minute scaling down of foreign involvement and perhaps better management of domestic funds and contracted work.



Karla, I completely agree about the summer program. I was actually thinking about this last night. The YMCA offers a wonderful summer camp for kids. They have a scholarship program that is paid for through donations. This year, the YMCAs for my county (we have 4) had enough money for 8 scholarships. 8. It costs $812 per year to give a kid a full scholarship to the summer program, thus allowing the parents to continue working and providing the child with nutritional meals, educational activities, and positive social interaction. Now, in my town, we are rather well off--the median income here is more than $30,000 above that of the rest of the county, but living expenses are similar, and we have less than 9% of our citizens qualifying for federal aid. Basically, I'm saying that most of the people in my town, can afford to sponsor a kid and we have a population of just under 20,000 in a county with just under 500,000 people. If the 15,000+ people in my community would sponsor 1 child, we could serve almost every child needing a space in the county. How cool would that be? But they don't give, even when they can afford it.



What i would like to see are some ideas on how to get people to donate on their own to the needy. Even if people cannot donate cash, they can donate old clothing, those extreme coupon people could totally help out homeless shelters and safe havens with toothpaste, shampoo, soap, etc. So why don't they? Why to we keep everything for ourselves?

Karla - posted on 05/30/2012

1,555

48

83

Crystal "I was told by a state worker that I could get help easyier if I was from another nation. Sence it is their job to do this day in and out I believe she would know."



This is all I could find to help support that claim. Even if they are getting aid they have to show need and meet the criteria. Their children need to eat as much as anyone's. (How would you know the price of their suit? Just saying, I've seen plenty of good suits at Good Will.)



http://www.lsnjlaw.org/english/immigrati...



"Yes i think we should take money from some spots to help other. No I do not think the people fighting for this country should be where it comes from(and if they have to thats who will be doing it). "



When moneys need to be allocated it's very hard to make cuts from any department. But when 23% of American children are living in poverty, I think we could find ways to trim the military spending to help ensure these kids are okay. Kelly's talking about less than a 2% cut in military spending. It doesn't have to come from those in battle, it could come from the latest remodel of Pentagon offices. (talking off the top of my head there, but I'm betting I could find some areas where the Pentagon could monitor their spending better. I think there's still a problem with contractors over charging when working with the government; more oversight in that area could help.)



ETA link because I forgot it the first time I posted! LOL

Karla - posted on 05/30/2012

1,555

48

83

Kelly,

Well said and I agree completely. I would just add a Summer program for kids - something fun and educational. Studies show the students from well-off families do better in school partly because they are keeping physically and mentally active during the long summer break.

Crystal - posted on 05/30/2012

102

39

5

Kelly, Yes i think we should take money from some spots to help other. No I do not think the people fighting for this country should be where it comes from(and if they have to thats who will be doing it). I say we cut of goverments pay by hald and we would have all the money needed to educate the nation as a whole.

Crystal - posted on 05/30/2012

102

39

5

Karla, I was told by a state worker that I could get help easyier if I was from another nation. Sence it is their job to do this day in and out I believe she would know. Having sat in DHS waiting to get help and watching people who can't speak any english, wearing suits that cost 3 or 4 grand get help with out all the hoops and red tape. I would have to take her at her word for it.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/30/2012

3,377

8

66

Where's the 10x helpful and encouraging button?? Love it Kelly - very great thoughts there!

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/30/2012

3,377

8

66

Karla---Also, I think if you were raised in poverty your sense of hope, and drive to move to a higher income bracket is lessened.



I agree with this. It only makes sense, really. I mean if you grew up in poverty, you wouldn't know much else, right? Which is why most developed Countries need more education on what is out there, what is available to them and how to achieve it.

Karla - posted on 05/30/2012

1,555

48

83

I believe a year or two on low income is much different then a lifetime of it. If you are able to get a better job then you can recoup. I'm thinking of growing children and their need for clothing and shoes, not to mention food and education. The stats are not good.

Also, I think if you were raised in poverty your sense of hope, and drive to move to a higher income bracket is lessened.

I don't know of many low income people who have a lack of pride. Many of them enjoy their families and even though they would like a better job and better place to live they don't mind their home. I do think for the betterment of society it would be good to improve the poverty situation.

Crystal Here its easyier to get help if you are not a U.S. citasen.

Really? Do you have anything to back up that claim? I just wonder because I've never heard that before.

Crystal - posted on 05/30/2012

102

39

5

Untill six monthes ago my family (four of us) lived on about 22,000 a year. It was hard and there was no extras. No cable, or toys just because, no house phone or 100 dollar shoes. It was hard and there where days that I would cry because my child wanted a dollar toy and had to be told no. My husband got a new job and we are looking at making about 44,000 this year.

And yet as I told my husband I don't look at it as being poor in eather case. We had food and a place to live. we might not have had the best but we had. Having grown up when there where years my mom had 12,000 a year and 3 kids I can't complain.

America needs to stop looking to help the world and help its own people. Here its easyier to get help if you are not a U.S. citasen. But if you come from another nation you can get help with out any problem. To many children go without food or water and we don't have to look at Africa or Haiti to see this but our back yards.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/30/2012

3,377

8

66

I could not raise my children on $25 000. They would be a part of the barely eating and being clothed children. We would have to sell our house and move back to a low cost living area.

Really, this kind of shit breaks my heart. I do not like to read, hear or think about these poor children. I know it isn't going to go away, unless we all do something.

I am thankful for how Canada does try to take responsibility. We do have a breakfast program within the schools, we do have UHC and we do have subsidized daycare. We have a child tax ($300 per kid for under $28 000, lessens as your income raises). It would make so much sense, if all developed Countries worked this way. It truly does help, it may not completely absolve the problem but it does provide more for these children.

Karla - posted on 05/30/2012

1,555

48

83

Okay, but the median income in the US is $50,000; 50% of that is $25,000.



Unicefs numbers as compared to the US Office of Management and Budget:

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty.




Info found here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/a...



Unicefs numbers are comparible to the US Poverty Threshold for a family of 4 (total) with 1,2, or 3 being children.



Poverty Thresholds for 2010 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years.



1st number = weighted average Household Threshold, 2nd = Income with 0 children in the household; 3rd = Income with 1 child in the household, 4th = Income with 2 children in the household, and so on.



Two people...................................... 14,218

Householder under 65 years........... 14,676; 14,602; 15,030

Householder 65 years and over........ 13,194; 13,180; 14,973



Three people.................................... 17,374; 17,057; 17,552; 17,568

Four people..................................... 22,314; 22,491; 22,859; 22,113; 22,190

Five people...................................... 26,439; 27,123; 27,518; 26,675; 26,023; 25,625

Six people........................................ 29,897; 31,197; 31,320; 30,675 30,056; 29,137; 28,591

Seven people................................... 34,009; 35,896; 36,120; 35,347; 34,809; 33,805; 32,635; 31,351

Eight people.................................... 37,934; 40,146 40,501; 39,772; 39,133; 38,227; 37,076; 35,879; 35,575

Nine people or more.......................... 45,220; 48,293; 48,527; 47,882; 47,340; 46,451; 45,227; 44,120; 43,845; 42,156

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.






We all know it would vary depending on location, cost of living, etc. But I would be hard pressed to raise my children well on 50% of the Median income in the US, and I live in a lower cost of living area.

Tracey - posted on 05/30/2012

1,094

2

58

What Unicef thinks is poverty and what normal people think is poverty are two diferent things. I see poverty as not having enough food to feed your family, adequate clothing and a roof over your head.
Using 50% median income to define poverty is ridiculous. By this definition a country that includes Billion / millionaires as part of the equation is going to have a higher figure for median income and therefore a large number of population "in poverty" who are realistically quite comfortably well off.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 05/30/2012

18,908

9

3002

Well, I live in a very poverty stricken area, and do not plan to stay here. I am not poverty stricken myself, circumstances that are to long to explain have ended us up where we live. Not many people are trying to improve the status here, and no one seems to care.

I will say, the school that was opened up by the founder, does have his best intentions to help at least give an excellent education to those that would not typically have access to it. I am thankful beyond words for this. It is a Charter school, and my son got in. He is flourishing, and if he had gone to the public school in this area, he would not be. I wish all the children in this area had the same opportunity, but for right now it is a small school. I do believe HE is doing something in this community to try to improve it.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms